On 26 Jan., 23:10, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:> In article> <054da2be-2f0a-4290-b356-10eb0a5e1...@r14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,>> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> > On 26 Jan., 01:46, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:>> > > > Of interest is this: If the same set of> > > > nodes has to describe both, the Binary Tree with finite paths and that> > > > with infinite paths, then it is impossible to discern, alone by nodes,> > > > whether we work in the former or the latter.>> > > There is no such thing as a Complete Infinite Binary Tree with finite> > > paths.>> > So you agree that there is a level omega?>> Why should I agree to add another level to the infinitely many finite> levels that must already exist in order to have a COMPLETE INFINITE> BINARY TREE at all?

These levels exist already after constructing all finite initialsegments of all paths, abbreviated by "all finite paths". Or can youdetermine a node or level of the complete infinite Binary Tree thatdoes not exist?